Question

 

Explain the key differences and similarities of each. What are the economic implications of liberal and illiberal democracy?

Answer 1

Dear Student,

Below are the answer to your question

A) Liberal Democracy

Liberal democracy is a liberal political ideology and a form of government in which representative democracy operates under the principles of classical liberalism. Also referred to as Western democracy, it is characterized by elections between multiple distinct political parties, a separation of powers into different branches of government, the rule of law in everyday life as part of an open society, a market economy with private property, and the equal protection of human rights, civil rights, civil liberties and political freedoms for all people.

To define the system in practice, liberal democracies often draw upon a constitution, either codified, (such as in the United States of America or uncodified, (such as in the United Kingdom) to delineate the powers of government and enshrine the social contract. After a period of sustained expansion throughout the 20th century, liberal democracy became the predominant political system in the world.

Liberal democracy may take various constitutional forms as it may be a constitutional monarchy (such as Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Japan, Netherlands, Norway, Spain and the United Kingdom) or a republic (such as France, Germany, Poland, India, Italy, Ireland, Mexico, and the United States). It may have a parliamentary system (such as Australia, Canada, Germany, India, Israel, Italy and the United Kingdom), a presidential system (such as Indonesia and the United States) or a semi-presidential system (such as France, Poland and Romania).

B) illiberal democracy.

An illiberal democracy, also called a partial democracy, low intensity democracy, empty democracy or guided democracy,[1] is a governing system in which although elections take place, citizens are cut off from knowledge about the activities of those who exercise real power because of the lack of civil liberties; thus it is not an "open society"

here are many countries "that are categorized as neither 'free' nor 'not free', but as 'probably free', falling somewhere between democratic and nondemocratic regimes".This may be because a constitution limiting government powers exists, but those in power ignore its liberties, or because an adequate legal constitutional framework of liberties does not exist

C) To understand the differences & similarities between liberal and non-liberal democracy:

Liberal democracy does not just include elections and establishing some official democratic foundations like parliament and courts, it also includes the creation of free press; the rule of law; an independent judicial system; the rights of minorities, the freedom of speech; the ability of parties and individuals to seek to divert official positions peacefully through competitive elections as well as the establishment of independent civil foundations that are in charge of solving civilians problems apart from any governmental control.

Non-liberal (illiberal) democracy, which was established by the journalist and the editor Fared Zakaria, means a system in which elections are made where civil liberties and civil rights as well as the multiple dimensions of a real democratic society are severely limited or non-existent. Societies that were under the effect of totalitarian governments and were affected by ethnic and sectarian divisions were the most affected ones by such internal conflicts.

So Zakaria was trying to illustrate that liberty and democracy can only be connected in the western societies and not for the third world societies, that is because the liberal democracy system is not just about free elections, it exceeds that to include the rule of law, the separation of powers as well as the protection of fundamental freedoms to citizens such as the freedom of speech, of movement, of listening, of ownership and the freedom of religions.

D) Economic implications of liberal and illiberal democracy

I) Economic Implication for Liberal Democracy

The relational theory of class conceptualises the state as capable of integrating, though not eliminating, class conflicts (Offe 1991). 8 Democracy is neither delivered automatically through economic development nor through the institutionalisation of abstract liberal values but through historically contingent class conflicts institutionalised in various mechanisms of legitimation. From this premise it follows that “anti-liberal political culture”, “populism” or “corruption” are embedded in relations of class and thus cannot be analysed separately.

We distinguish specifically between three sets of rights: property rights, political rights, and civil rights. We define these as follows:

• Property rights protect asset holders and investors against expropriation by the state or other groups.
• Political rights guarantee free and fair electoral contests and allow the winners of such contests to determine policy, subject to the constraints established by other rights (when provided).
• Civil rights ensure equality before the law – i.e. non-discrimination in the provision of public goods such as justice, security, education, and health.

The defining characteristic of this political settlement is that it excludes the main beneficiary of civil rights – the dispossessed minorities – from the bargaining table. These minorities have neither resources (like the elite) nor numbers (like the majority) behind them. So they do not have something to bring to the table, and cannot make any credible threats. The political logic of democratisation dictates the provision of property and political rights, but not civil rights. The provision of civil rights is costly to the majority and largely unnecessary for the elite (who can pay for their own collective goods by extracting a surplus from the masses). Therefore, the political settlement is one that favours electoral democracy over liberal democracy.

I) Economic Implication for iliberal Democracy

illiberal rule relies all on the inadequacy of this opposition. They still profess an unreconstructed neoliberal worldview that Hungarians reject. They are tainted by sleaze. Their governance under Prime Minister Ferenc Gyurcsány (2004-2009) had led to record budget deficits, a massive increase in indebtedness, rapidly widening inequalities, as well as an economic collapse that pushed Hungary into an IMF program. The Socialist and Liberal forces are still displayed today in the media by the same faces that had created this mess a decade ago. The de facto leader of this opposition is still Gyurcsány, who is the most unpopular national politician according to polls. Thus, the incompetent opposition explains most of why Orbán wins one election after another. Voters are simply not prepared to support the tainted, divided and ineffective lot that call themselves his opposition.

here is, however, another strong basis for Orbán’s durability: the economy. Hungary has enjoyed solid economic growth, increased employment and a steady rise in real wages in recent years. In the eyes of voters Orbán’s economic record – a fundamental yardstick for them – is unmistakably superb in comparison with the dismal record of his familiar and discredited opponents. In fact, many admirers of Orbán in neighboring countries have even taken to advocate the ‘successful economic model’ of his illiberal Hungary.